Hosted by Fox (who else) and in his column for the World
(wait for it)
Society's tolerance of homosexuality!
You can (and should) read MMFA take, as well as the comments section, and you can read the entire roll of toilet paper here. (And if you do, leave a comment there. I did. We'll see what it brings in.) But here's my take, based on some of the "highlights":
We may not fully understand the details of what Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky did or didn't do to young boys in locker rooms and showers, though he does admit inappropriate behavior. But the real question is how he did it for so long without consequences.
Good start: "We may not fully understand the details,” but hey, don't let that get in the way of your diatribe!
But now that being accused of homophobia is considered an offense, while practicing homosexuality is considered a virtue, should it really surprise anyone that such behavior would go unreported or unchallenged for so long?
“Being accused of homophobia is considered an offense.” I’m not even sure what that means. BEING ACCUSED isn’t the offense, asshat. BEING HOMOPHOBIC is the offense. But whatever.
Also… “practicing homosexuality is considered a virtue.” Really? By who, exactly, other than another homosexual who’s looking for a mate or some action? (Between another consenting adult, and which does not harm to anyone, I hasten to add.) Who actually considers homosexuality a "virtue?"
Does he mean a virtue, like... honestly, for example? Or integrity? Intellingnce? Wisdom? And, if so, HOW THE HELL WOULD THIS GUY KNOW?!
In an age when government schools are actually teaching children how to perform homosexual acts and that there is nothing wrong with them, it would seem that an environment conducive for predators of children is being created under the watchful eye of the state and the media.“In an age when government schools are actually teaching children how to perform homosexual acts?!” Jesus Tapdancing Christ, man! Where the hell are your children going to school?! A Catholic School?! (Sorry, could resist.)
Remember also that Penn State is a public university. There is probably no institution more conscious of the new "sin" of homophobia than the American college campus. There are few imaginable offenses more grievous than homophobia in that environment. One pays a price for exhibiting any symptoms of this dread disease - especially in academia.
Wow. That’s the first thing he’s gotten right. I can’t disagree with a thing he’s said here. Of course, I’d say it PROUDLY, as opposed to with the righteous indignation that HE'D likely say it with, but whatever.
Although on the other hand... "Academia," huh? Please, refresh my memory: Which academic subject did Sandusky teach, exactly? For that matter which subject did Patrerno teach? And who decided to cover this up for "academic" reasons? Puh-lease. If there's a culture problem here, it's our worship of Football, and the glorification of Football players and Football coaches. The Religioun of Football was far more to blame here (which is to say, almost entirely) than any "indoctrination" regarding tolerance.
What happened at Penn State is a tragedy. Worse, it's likely a series of tragedies that will impact the lives of people for years to come.Yes, it will. And it is. As is (and will) the continued bigotry against those who want to live in peace with their life partner, but can’t because people like you continue to insist on slandering and harassing them.
Let's stop acting like idiots by addressing symptoms of a much deeper problem when most everyone knows why we're seeing an explosion of predatory sexual acts on innocent children everywhere - in churches, in schools and in academia."Let's stop acting like idiots." You first.
Besides… We KNOW why it happened in Churches. Because The Church covered it up! (That, and the most Religious and Pious members of our society usually also tend to be the most hypocritical. Just sayin'.) Asd for SCHOOLS? (Which is realtly the same as aying "Academia?") Yes, Homosexuallity is TOLERATED. That means we no longer ostracize people for being who they are. But the last time I checked PEDOPHILIA is NOT. (Nor is Sexual Harassment – you know: that Liberal pox on the Conservative Corporatists and Herman Cain's of the world?)
Question for you: If Sandusky had been found raping little girls, would that change anything? Would HETEROSEXUALITY suddenly come under scrutiny? It very simple:
HOMO – means “same”
PEDO – means “child” or “young”
See… NOT THE SAME THING.
Sure… Male Pedophiles do tend to show a preference for boys. But not all of them. How do you explain the others? How despicable is it that this man is willing to disappear any number of FEMALE victims of molestion. And I know they're out there! Hey: I know one or two PERSONALLY! How about female pedophiles? They ALSO tend to prefer boys. Some prefer girls, sure, but the trend goes against you here. And many of either gender? Don’t care. Because it’s not about GENDER, it’s about AGE. (And those thing that go along with it.)
And those male pedophiles who molest only boys? They show no greater preference for same-sex relationships with other ADULTS than the general population does. So… Are they still homosexual? What’s more, homosexuals (meaning ADULTS in same sex relationships with OTHER ADULTS of the same gender) show no greater predilection for Pedophilia than the general population. There isn;'t even a corelation between the two unless you start out with absrud assumption that the two are the same and go from there, never bothering to justify, explain or test that assumption!
The REAL reason that this tragedy went unpunished for so long, is very simple. It’s not our tolerance of HOMOSEXUALITY. It is our very unfortunate tolerance of sexual indiscretion. (Combined with our irrational love of Football.) Whether it's politicians who cheat on their wives, bosses who sexually harass their subordinates or people who molest children, for too long the gut reaction is to doubt the victim. Failing that? BLAME the victim. And finally, MAKE IT ALL GO AWAY. Whether that means re-assigning a Priest to a different parish, or telling a retired coach that he and his charity for underprivileged boys (*shudder*) is no longer welcome on campus, we are more eager to bury it under the rug that deal with it.
Of course I say, "we," but lets face it: that's being generous. These people aren't LIBERALS. This guy invokes "Academia," becuase that's a code-word for Liberal. But again: What subject did Sandusky and Parterno TEACH? They're not ACADEMICS, they're FUCKING FOOTBALL COACHES. And Penn State Football? If anything? That's CONSERVATIVE. Backwoods towns, where everyone related to everyone else? (Which more and mor eappears to be the case here?) Outside of Vermont? Those also tend to be CONSERVATIVE. There was no liberal cover-up here. This was not the result of a discussion about the tolerance of homosexuality amongst the Liberal, academic elites. And it's a blatant lie to charectarize it as such. Now I'm not suggesting for aminute that this Sandusky was a pedophile because he was Conservative, or even that he WAS conservative. (Nor Paterno, nor anyone else involved for that matter.) I'm just using it to illustrate the fact that if we're going to start throwing around baseless acusations, I can do it too, and make a far better case for it!
And besides, as far as I know? SANDUSKY IS NOT GAY. And if he is? May if lived in a more tolerant area, he'd have found a more fullfilling relationship with someone his own age, and this never would have happened. I can't proove that, obviously, but if homosexuality plays ANY factor here, tolerance remians on the side of RIGHT!
And is some ways we - as a SOCIETY - are getting better about some aspects of this. Pedophilia generally sets off more alarms, which is what makes the Penn State story so disturbing. But in Rapecases? Blame the victim. Smear the victim. Put the victim on trial. Sexual Harassment? Hoo-boy. Even when they WIN, the victims’ careers are still effectively OVER. Who wants to hire someone who is such a lawsuit liability? (See what happens when "I sued my last employer" is on your resume!) Not to mention that by the time they have won (assuming they ever get to court, let alone win) they’ve endured any and all manner of retaliation, slander, libel, personal attack and invasion of privacy. So they get victimized, then victimized again, and again, only to WIN and have “go find a new career” and a red-letter on there chests to show for it. Meanwhile? Their ex-boss? Well, shoot… Even if he’s NOT rehired - assuming he was even fired - he’s still got his wealth to live on. Much more so than the poor subordinate whose career he was SUPPOSED to be helping BUILD anyway.
If you want to tie Penn State to another social issue? Tie it to Sexual Harassment. Tie it to Rape. Because the issue with Pedophilia is not one of GENDER... It is one of CONSENT.
Asshole.
-------------------------
Best comment in the entire story.
(There are only two people who rocked it better: John Holmes and Freddy Mercury, and they both died of AIDS!)
Perhaps clarifying exactly what you mean may help some (me). Your description of the meaning of the words "homo" and "pedo" need some work. What age were these young men who are doing the accusing of these crimes? I've heard they were young teenagers. That age group (I've been to MediaMatters too) is not included in the "pedo" description (by their posters). That way all the democratic politicians that perform the same actions won't be considered pedophiles but rather just homosexual. I see no difference if a man like young males or old males, they still like males ... which makes them all homosexual.
ReplyDeleteSo, I guess my next question is; do you support homosexuals while decrying pedophiles? I thought you absolutely detested hypocrisy?
By your statement about "if he is gay" then he should have found an older male to have sex with makes me think you have no clue what the difference between men liking men and men liking young men is. You seem to support his actions as long as his partner is past the "age of consent" and using that "line" as the cut-off point for what constitutes pedophilia and homosexuality. Which is fine, I just got a little confused after reading you hate hypocrisy, yet feel pedophiles are criminals and homosexuals are heros. How does that pan out in this case?
"Who actually considers homosexuality a "virtue?" "
ReplyDeleteWell, let's look at that simple statement. If you were to describe the beneficial actions of Barney Frank or Harvey Milk, what descriptive words would you use to describe their heroism and/or accomplishments? If "gay" or "homosexual" is anywhere in those descriptive words you use, then YOU would be considering homosexuality a "virtue". So to clarify your confusion as to "who actually considers homosexuality a virtue" it would be you and the many others who think being gay makes a person's actions more meaningful than if they weren't gay.
To answer you first question, I thought at least one was ~10. If molesting (anal raping) a 10 year old isn't pedophilia? Well, I can't help ya. OTOH, in every case they were UNDERAGED, not ot mention FORCED. And THAT'S the issue here.
ReplyDelete"I see no difference if a man like young males or old males, they still like males ... which makes them all homosexual."
Well... Sandusky's been married for 45 years. So... What do you call someone who likes WOMEN? And while you may be inclined to dismiss it, there in no evidence of him every pursuing a homosexual relationshuiop with an ADULT. Sexual orientation is about LIFELONG RELATIONSHIPS. Pedophilia is about age, and acting out sexual fantasy with YOUNGSTERS. That's not just my opinion: The Psychiatric Communtiy disagrees with you as well. You're entitled to your opinon about any one group of PEOPLE. But you're flat out wrong wrong in saying that these two groups are the same.
To your hypocrisy question? Again: THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS. And even as you (inaccurately) decsribe them: One does no harm and the other one does.
And you're arguing like a conservative. (Which is not a good thing.) Where did I say that gays were my "heroes?" SHOW ME. Don't put words in my mouth: I don't like the way your words taste, and I have no idea where they've been!
Why do I have to describe someone's "herosim?" Why do I have to either CONDEMN or WORSHIP them? I'll defer to Andy Keiss' comment on that same MMFA thread:
"It's another handicap of the binary brain. Most of us see huge grey areas between condemnation and sanctification. The wingnut needs everything put into very distinct categories of "Good" and "Bad".
If you don't want something outlawed, you must want it mandated. If you don't hate something with a fiery passion, you must love it with an equally hot passion. No sitting on the fence*!
* Sitting on the fence = thinking."
As for their accomplishments? Milk was a crusader against DISCRIMINATION. As I don't share your (or society at the time's) prejudices, I DO admire that. (Again: Homosexuality DOES NO HARM.) As for Frank? Most of the smack the Right talks about Frank is either inaccurate or Gay slurs. Beyond that, why do I need to defend him? Why can't I view his congressional career the way I view MOST Representative's careers: As a matter of supreme indifference to me. I know of nothing "heroic" he's done, nor do I know of anything worthy of condemnation. If you expected me to say that he's "corageous" because he's an openly gay public figure? That has more to do with society's lingering prejudice that anything about Frank being gay. He could belong to a minorty religion (come to think of it, he DOES!) or be an atheist, and I could say the same thing.
But that's beside the point: I'm not required to either worship or condemn them. I believe in FREEDOM. That I fight discrimination, doesn't mean I'm required to LOVE those who's RIGHTS I would defend. (I'll defend YOUR right to free speech, even if I disagree with every word you say! And I've done that in THIS BLOG - do a search for "Phelps," and read 'Test of our principles.') In all honestly? "Gay" doesn't mean more to me that "straight" does. I mentally catalog the fact and move on with my life, no judgement necessary.
Pedophiles? (Which is what Sandusky is.) Or Rapists? (If you disagree?) These people have VICTIMS. No one has the right to commit CRIMES or DO HARM. (Independant of gender.) Show me who the VICTIMS of Harvey Milk were, and you'll have a point. Otherwise? Stay out of the way of their pursuit of happiness. They are harming no one.
And if you think they're harming themselves?
I'd rather allow a Billion people to risk harming themselves than to stand in the way of even a single person's pursuit of happiness.
Reading the grand jury indictment, I find victims aged 12, 15, 13, 13, 9, 11, 12, 13
ReplyDelete"And who decided to cover this up for "academic" reasons?"
Did you also know that the Child Protection Agency were notified of Sandusky's behavior back in 98? The Grand Jury report says there was a known investigation of Sandusky, then, for his behavior with children. It would be nice to know if THEY thought there was or was not anything inappropriate with his behavior. It's been nearly 14 years, do you think child protection services should have come to a conclusion by now? Perhaps they should have notified authorities too? Nahh, let's put ALL the blame on University coaches and staff for not notifying police.
And don't get me wrong, I am in NO WAY defending the actions of a pedophile. I just think you are wrong about your denial that pedophilia and homosexuality have no connection. Victim 7 described as feeling "very uncomfortable with Sandusky's behavior". Victim 5 said "extremely uncomfortable". Do you honestly think a 12 or 9 year old knows the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality? IMHO, the kids were "uncomfortable" because Sandusky was trying to perform homosexual acts on him. You see, much of society still feels homosexual acts are NOT a normal part of life (as you seem to think, along with your noted hatred of religion). Whether these homosexual acts are consensual or with children, they are still homosexual acts. Making that person a homosexual. Maybe "gay" doesn't mean more to you than "straight" does, but to many there IS a difference that they feel does NOT need to be force-taught or force-allowed. You may be completely tolerant of one deviant behavior, but you are hypocritically completely intolerant of another deviant behavior. And in the opinion of many ... both are deviant behaviors. You can call us deviantaphobes (I made a new word;), because we don't think either are appropriate behaviors. You can, if you want, so if calling someone names simply because they don't think like you is your way of doing things ... so be it.
Then, obviously, you choose to be "media blind" and have ignored the public school controversy over what to teach children about homosexuality in school. Your denial that it exists leads me to believe you are just performing your duty as a card carrying member of the liberal party. But, ignoring reality is what started this case to begin with.
I'm sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have wasted mine or your time with these discussions if you're just going to blindly deny reality simply because you don't like it.
@William - Seiously?
ReplyDelete"IMHO, the kids were "uncomfortable" because Sandusky was trying to perform homosexual acts on him."
This is quite possibly the single dumbest thing I yet seen written about the matter. Seriously. Bear with me a second... So you're saying that... what?
That little GIRLS would have been OK with this? Or that these boys would have been OK with older WOMEN performing these acts or some equivalent act?! REALLY?! Would YOU be OK with it? If the victims were female, would you feel any differently?! Or if Sandusky was female?!
Look... Most of what you just posted is irrelevant to the main point of Homosexuality =/= Pedophile (and/or vice-versa).
"I shouldn't have wasted mine or your time with these discussions if you're just going to blindly deny reality simply because you don't like it."
Dude, seriously: YOU. ARE. DESCRIBING. YOUSELF.
Show me some evidence of your point. "We've" studied it. And you know what the experts concluded? That they are not the same! That there is no greatter occurance of Pedophilia amongst Homosexuals, nor that Pedohiles prefer same sex ADULT relationships (homsexuality) than in the general population. Becuase it's not about GENDER, it's about AGE. It's also not about the RELATIONSHIP, but about the EXPLOITATION. (IOW: It's closer a special category of RAPE than of SEXUALITY.)
Have you seen ANY evidence that Sandusky wants a relatioonship with GROWN MAN? Any evidence that he wants a MAN to do some of these things to or with HIM? Um... NO, becuase he's NOT GAY. This is not just MHO, this is based on the conclusions of the people who STUDY these matters. Who are YOU to simply decide to throw that out?
And who's denying the controversy? You wnat a concession?> Fine: THERE'S A CONTROVERSY. So what? Would you mind trying to show me how this is connected to SANDUSKY?!
"Have you seen ANY evidence that Sandusky wants a relatioonship with GROWN MAN?"
ReplyDeleteHave you seen any evidence that any of his victims are girls? Look the fact remains that gay men like other men/boys (you can call him "bi" if it helps you correlate his marriage). If you try to deny that simple fact, then perhaps you should find another subject to discuss.
"If you try to deny that simple fact, then perhaps you should find another subject to discuss."
ReplyDeleteWilliam, Eddie's not the one who's denying facts.
Thanks, Conch.
ReplyDeleteWilliam? You're WRONG. Period. And you can LOOK IT UP. The PEOPLE WHO STUDY THESE THINGS distinguish the two.
And what's more: The experts aren't right because THEY agree with ME(or with Liberals on this matter.) WE are right, becuase WE agree with THEM.
One's sexual orientation has to do with the Gender one seeks out in a PROPER, CONSENTUAL, ADULT relationship. PEDOPHILIA is a MENTAL DISEASE where one preys on CHILDREN. Gender is not the issue: AGE and LACK OF CONSENT (lack of the ability to GIVE consent) is the issue.
And no amount of bigotry or ignorance on your part will change that.
They can distinguish them all they want, But if a person likes to have sex with someone who is the same sex as them, they are called homosexual. YOU even pointed that out in you initial article. Perhaps he should be referred to as a homosexual pedophile. When he starts having sex with underage girls he would be ONLY a pedophile. But, when he has sex with other males ... he is a homosexual. According to YOUR DEFINITIONS. And that will be proven as soon as he enters the prison system. Only this time his consent probably won't be given to those who want sex with him.
ReplyDelete